Who dares sent me SPAM?: 24 new messages in 11 topics

talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taliban before the Taliban
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 4:54 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 6:04 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:51 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > of course nasty people will be nasty without religion.
>
> I am quite sure that you miss utterly and entirely the delicious irony
> in that statement . . . . . . .

the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers,
when dawkins has never bombed anybody, nor does he show any
inclination to do so. flank's only concern is tarring and feathering
anybody that dares ask religious people hard questions.

>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Author:
> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 4:53 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 6:02 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:43 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 7:23 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 12:32 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:37 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 3:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:21 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:01 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:51 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > I figure that the point of being a Christian is that it feels right ot
> > > > > > > > > me. The first generation of Christians didn't even have a New
> > > > > > > > > Testament, and then for several more generations they had an unedited
> > > > > > > > > mish-mash. I don't suppose they are all writhing in hell for lack of
> > > > > > > > > a Bible.
>
> > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > Indeed. But then, those people worshipped a god. Fundies like Ray
> > > > > > > > don't worship a god --- they worship a book about god, and are too
> > > > > > > > stupid to tell the difference.
>
> > > > > > > > Idolators, I believe is the proper term for that.
>
> > > > > > > who are you to say that gods should be worshipped over books about
> > > > > > > them? sounds to me like youre telling us that *your* religious
> > > > > > > opinions should be valued more than ray's.
>
> > > > > > Well, Lenny always lets his pizza delivery boy vet his opinions.
>
> > > > > I do, of course, find it tremendously funny that Snex is attacking me
> > > > > for, apparently, being a theist who is on the side of the fundies and
> > > > > the IDers . . . . .
>
> > > > actually, in this particular subthread, i attacked you for being a
> > > > hypocrite. you claim that nobody's religious opinions are any more
> > > > valid than anybody elses, yet just above you asserted that your
> > > > opinion is more valid than ray's.
>
> > > Um, I did no such thing.
>
> > > Undermining Biblical literalism is a political tactic against
> > > fundamentalistm. A damn effective one, too.
>
> > why should you wish to undermine it, if it is just as valid as anybody
> > else's religious opinion?
>
> Snex, don't be an ass.

why are you unable to answer simple questions?

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:09 pm
From: Free Lunch

On 23 Apr 2007 16:52:26 -0700, in talk.origins
snex <xens@comcast.net> wrote in
<1177372346.018048.132320@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 23, 5:55 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 12:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
>> > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
>> > have no legitimate purpose there.
>>
>> Um, in case you didn't notice, Snex, I've spent the past 25 years
>> fighting to keep religious statements out of public school biology
>> classrooms.
>
>why?

In the United States we don't allow religious doctrines to be taught in
public schools because of the Establishment Clause. Religious people can
be found who disagree on every single item of doctrine. What possible
reason is there for allowing such contentious and unsubstantiated claims
to be allowed in school in the place of education?

>> (sigh)
>>
>> ================================================
>> Lenny Flank
>> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>>
>> Author:
>> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>>
>> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:14 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 7:09 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 16:52:26 -0700, in talk.origins
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
> <1177372346.018048.132...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Apr 23, 5:55 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 23, 12:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> >> > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> >> > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> >> Um, in case you didn't notice, Snex, I've spent the past 25 years
> >> fighting to keep religious statements out of public school biology
> >> classrooms.
>
> >why?
>
> In the United States we don't allow religious doctrines to be taught in
> public schools because of the Establishment Clause. Religious people can
> be found who disagree on every single item of doctrine. What possible
> reason is there for allowing such contentious and unsubstantiated claims
> to be allowed in school in the place of education?

flank claims that the claims contain truth. if he thinks this, then
the claims arent contentious or unsubstantiated in his world.

i, however, agree that religious claims are contentious and
unsubstantiated, and thats why i will persist in pointing this out to
anybody who asserts these claims, be it ray martinez or dana tweedy.

>
> >> (sigh)
>
> >> ================================================
> >> Lenny Flank
> >> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> >> Author:
> >> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> >> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:19 pm
From: Free Lunch

On 23 Apr 2007 17:14:19 -0700, in talk.origins
snex <xens@comcast.net> wrote in
<1177373659.218850.146330@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 23, 7:09 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 16:52:26 -0700, in talk.origins
>> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> <1177372346.018048.132...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >On Apr 23, 5:55 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 23, 12:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
>> >> > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
>> >> > have no legitimate purpose there.
>>
>> >> Um, in case you didn't notice, Snex, I've spent the past 25 years
>> >> fighting to keep religious statements out of public school biology
>> >> classrooms.
>>
>> >why?
>>
>> In the United States we don't allow religious doctrines to be taught in
>> public schools because of the Establishment Clause. Religious people can
>> be found who disagree on every single item of doctrine. What possible
>> reason is there for allowing such contentious and unsubstantiated claims
>> to be allowed in school in the place of education?
>
>flank claims that the claims contain truth. if he thinks this, then
>the claims arent contentious or unsubstantiated in his world.

From what I have read over time, your claims appear to misrepresent what
Flank said.

>i, however, agree that religious claims are contentious and
>unsubstantiated, and thats why i will persist in pointing this out to
>anybody who asserts these claims, be it ray martinez or dana tweedy.

A person who carelessly throws Dana and Ray into the same bucket is
acting exactly like Ray.

>> >> (sigh)
>>
>> >> ================================================
>> >> Lenny Flank
>> >> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>>
>> >> Author:
>> >> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>>
>> >> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: True to his form, Charles Darwin married his first cousin...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:55 am
From: Jim Willemin

Pfusand <ann@szczesuil.com> wrote in
news:1177365921.431025.216210@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 23, 2:46 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> <beck...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177314516.793874.152570@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 8:35 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>> >> In article <1177297076.971680.13...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >>Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Yes. They are legal in Rhode Island. In fact, Rhode Island goes
>> >> >one better, and allows Jews to marry within the degree of
>> >> >consanguinity that the Bibble allows them; i.e., an uncle may
>> >> >marry his niece.
>>
>> >> I have heard this repeatedly, and each time have asked for proof
>> >> that the law grants this liberty only to jews. Do you have a
>> >> cite?
>>
>> > I checked the Rhode Island State web site and found this in Title
>> > 15 Domestic Relations, Chapter 15-1 Persons Eligible to Marry:
>>
>> > § 15-1-1 Men forbidden to marry kindred. - No man shall marry
>> > his
>> > mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter,
>> > stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife,
>> > daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's
>> > daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter,
>> > sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or
>> > mother's sister.
>>
>> > § 15-1-2 Women forbidden to marry kindred. - No woman shall
>> > marry
>> > her father, grandfather, son, son's son, daughter's son,
>> > stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, son's
>> > daughter's husband, daughter's daughter's husband, husband's
>> > father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's son's son,
>> > husband's daughter's son, brother, brother's son, sister's son,
>> > father's brother, or mother's brother.
>>
>> > § 15-1-3 Incestuous marriages void. - If any man or woman
>> > intermarries within the degrees stated in § 15-1-1 or § 15-1-2, the
>> > marriage shall be null and void.
>>
>> > § 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
>> > provisions of §§ 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
>> > affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
>> > people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
>> > their religion.
>>
>> Curiously, the first two clauses do not make illegal marriage between
>> first cousins (the subject of the thread). And interestingly, some
>> of the relationships excluded are not "blood" relations at all, such
>> as daughter's son's wife.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's not "curious;" it's just as I said. Grump, grump.
>
> Pfusand
>
> That which does not destroy us
> has made its last mistake.
> -- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
>
>

I just want to say that it is one of the great joys of this newsgroup
to see the fruits of the labors of those who go out and get the sources
to settle questions like this. I thank you all for such an
intellectually satisfying exchange (as opposed to, say, anything
involving Ray or Dale or someone).

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:03 pm
From: Robert Carnegie

Ferrous Patella wrote:

> news:mi8m23dbdg2psk2b9g7gklods5d7qh74tc@4ax.com by Sammy:
>
> > marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> > purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> > was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago.
>
> This sounds like a expedisous case of moral (ahem) relativism on God's
> part to get over the hump in start-up mode.

For that matter, why did God decide to stop close family marriages
then, if they were okay before?

Btw, do you mean "expeditious" or "expedient"?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:19 pm
From: Robert Carnegie

Mike Dworetsky wrote:

> <beckman@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:1177314516.793874.152570@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 22, 8:35 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >> In article <1177297076.971680.13...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >>
> >> Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes. They are legal in Rhode Island. In fact, Rhode Island goes one
> >> >better, and allows Jews to marry within the degree of consanguinity
> >> >that the Bibble allows them; i.e., an uncle may marry his niece.
> >>
> >> I have heard this repeatedly, and each time have asked for proof that
> >> the law grants this liberty only to jews. Do you have a cite?
> >>
> > I checked the Rhode Island State web site and found this in Title 15
> > Domestic Relations, Chapter 15-1 Persons Eligible to Marry:
> >
> > § 15-1-1 Men forbidden to marry kindred. - No man shall marry his
> > mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter,
> > stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife,
> > daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's
> > daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter, sister,
> > brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's
> > sister.
> >
> > § 15-1-2 Women forbidden to marry kindred. - No woman shall marry
> > her father, grandfather, son, son's son, daughter's son, stepfather,
> > grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, son's daughter's husband,
> > daughter's daughter's husband, husband's father, husband's
> > grandfather, husband's son, husband's son's son, husband's daughter's
> > son, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or
> > mother's brother.
> >
> > § 15-1-3 Incestuous marriages void. - If any man or woman
> > intermarries within the degrees stated in § 15-1-1 or § 15-1-2, the
> > marriage shall be null and void.
> >
> > § 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
> > provisions of §§ 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
> > affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
> > people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
> > their religion.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Curiously, the first two clauses do not make illegal marriage between first
> cousins (the subject of the thread). And interestingly, some of the
> relationships excluded are not "blood" relations at all, such as daughter's
> son's wife.

At least some of this might have to do with inheritance tax evasion?
Or with some kinds of arranged marriages? Or both?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest (several quality-
control warnings at the top), "The Bible, primarily in Leviticus,
[...] prohibits sexual relations between aunts and nephews, but not
between uncles and nieces. Christians interpret it to include the
latter by implication [i.e. as prohibited?], though Jews traditionally
do not."

Incidentally, what would be the implication of this law being
unconstitutional? Would the whole thing be struck out, and all the
prohibited marriages allowed?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin responsible for Blacksburg
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1518da6c15c3a7cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:00 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <1177185207.416845.148470@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
rcoppock@adnc.com says...
> Everybody has an axe to grind in the recent school shooting.
> Talk radio last week had a caller who was sure that male
> circumcision was responsible. Soon, some kook just has
> to notice Cho's major, and then demand that we ban English
> departments from our schools.

It was the evils of Shakespearianism that lead him to it!
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atypical Speculation on Garden of Eden
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/458eef56222c8a8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:00 pm
From: skyeyes

On Apr 23, 4:02 pm, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:04 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
> >...
> > Well, not necessarily. Many myths have been hung upon the scaffold of
> > historical events. (At the moment, I'm thinking of Troy and the
> > mythic figures and events involved in its story. That Troy was a real
> > place and was probably fought over doesn't mean that Zeus and Athena
> > actually exist because that's what the myth says.) It doesn't make
> > the magical happenings in the myth real. In fact, rooting out the
> > historical basis of a myth serves to strip the supernatural features
> > away.
>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> > skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
>
> Thanks, Brenda.
>
> I would like that newsgroupers do what you suggested in your last
> sentence.

Cut 'em some slack. They probably don't have time to read as much
Joseph Campbell as I do. :)

Brenda Nelson, A.A.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wedging in creation theory
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/7c6491e9b9485d3a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:07 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 9:49 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "How much" can still be reduced to a proposition of alternatives.
>
> That you think that the freedom I am discussing has nothing to do with
> planets, dust etc. is only according to your interpretation of the
> scientific method.

Please show where your usage of "freedom" has *anything* to do with
the scientific method.

> Sometimes for practical purposes most all people do
> actually think that planets, dust and almost everything, does behave
> freely.

Only in a certain context, and most certainly, not in the context
*you* are using, since *your* context involves "planets, dust and
almost everything" making decisions, which requires minds. ( Of
course, you inclusion of "almost everything" could include humans and
other organisms with a sufficently advanced state of conciousness. In
other words, by grouping your terms as such, you cna flip-flop in
context, again).

> And when they consider such as behaving freely, they use the
> logic about freedom as I have explained it.

Nobody in their right mind uses "freedom" in the way you do.

Boikat

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:05 pm
From: stew dean

On 23 Apr, 15:49, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "How much" can still be reduced to a proposition of alternatives.

I don't think it can. I think you concept of alternatives is
impossible. I hold we make our own alternatives.

> That you think that the freedom I am discussing has nothing to do with
> planets, dust etc. is only according to your interpretation of the
> scientific method.

The scientific method is not really open to interpretation. It's about
objectivity.

> Sometimes for practical purposes most all people do
> actually think that planets, dust and almost everything, does behave
> freely.

Based upon what? I disagree with the above statement. I hold that
people don't think of planets having freedom but of orbiting the sun
in predetermined way. I hold that noone thinks that dust thinks so has
freedom and I hold there is no freedom without thought.

All this meshes nicely with reality.

To be honest most people don't think too much about what is
predetermined but they certainly don't see, say, raindrops as being
'free'.

Stew Dean

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:10 pm
From: stew dean

On 23 Apr, 22:51, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Come on you don't actually believe
> that the orbit of the planet is just a function of past states do you?
> This is the universe, the universe has a future, the planets dig the
> future, come on!

The orbit of a planet is the function of it's past and current state.
The future is set by the past.

Planets have no concept of future, past or present. They don't 'dig'
anything as they are planets. Planets, like clouds, don't think. They
have no spirit in the cognitive sense.

Stew Dean

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:18 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 4:51 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 23 apr, 21:17, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <1177339743.163050.243...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "How much" can still be reduced to a proposition of alternatives.
>
> > > That you think that the freedom I am discussing has nothing to do with
> > > planets, dust etc. is only according to your interpretation of the
> > > scientific method.
>
> > So show us an experiment designed and conducted according to your
> > special interpretation of the scientific method which will confirm what
> > you were saying about the orbit of the moon.
>
> For the most scientific knowledge I know about freedom I refer you to
> Dubois "strong anticipation" theory.

Does not apply. The moon's orbit is not a quantum computational
system.

>
> I wouldn't say that this strong anticipation theory agrees with
> creationist conception of freedom in every aspect, but at least this
> scientist calculates with a future.

In the context of a quantum system.

> Come on you don't actually believe
> that the orbit of the planet is just a function of past states do you?

It's a function of mass, gravity and velocity.

> This is the universe, the universe has a future, the planets dig the
> future, come on!

You didn't answer the question posed: Please present an example of
how your "freedom" figures into the scientific method.

>
> > > Sometimes for practical purposes most all people do
> > > actually think that planets, dust and almost everything, does behave
> > > freely. And when they consider such as behaving freely, they use the
> > > logic about freedom as I have explained it.
>
> > No, they don't!
>
> Gee, let's investigate.............................. Yeah they do,
> including yourself.

Sorry, a bunch of dots does not equal an "investiation".

>
> alternatives in the future, getting decided upon, and what does the
> job of realizing the one alternative in stead of the other is
> spiritual.

Define "spiritual".

> That is how you practically use knowledge about freedom.

No it isn't. Prove me wrong. Where does "spiritual" figure into my
deciding if I want onions on my cheeseburger?

> There seems to be no investigation of practical knowledge that says
> otherwise,

Actually, there is no investigation of "practical knowledge" (whatever
that is supposed to mean) that does. If you have a citation, I'm sure
a lot of people that think you're a nut-job would like to see it.

> on the other side is only philosphizing.

Your version of "philosphizing" is the kind of "philosphizing" that is
rightly refered to as "navel gazing", or "mental masturbation". Take
your pick.

Boikat

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:06 pm
From: Lee Jay

On Apr 23, 4:14 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 4:51 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
> > > too well in Statistics 101, did you?
>
> > Got an A, actually.
>
> You must have been blowing the professor.

Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't). Actually, I got As
in almost everything from preschool to graduate school.

> > > And, in any event, if you think
> > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>
> > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>
> Then you don't, because they aren't.

They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.

> > > Oh, so it's a personal anecdote. Why didn't you say so. That makes
> > > all the difference in the world.
>
> > I did say so. You just don't know how to read for comprehension.>From my post: "This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in that category."
>
> Apparently your sarchasm detector doesn't function any better than
> your liber/conservative-o-meter.

Back-peddling is so wimpy.

> > > > Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
> > > > that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
> > > > good and hands-on types of stuff.
>
> > > Yes, but I see no evidence that political constitutes the dividing
> > > line between the two.
>
> > And I didn't say so. Pay attention. Most professors are liberals
> > because liberals tend to value education over indoctrination. Also,
> > most professors tend to be hands-off types from my own experience.
>
> Your own anecdotal experience meaning precisely dick in the grand
> scheme of things.

And yours the same.

> > Therefore most *professors* (not liberals) would tend to be the wrong
> > people I'd like to see armed in an emergency situation.
>
> I'd like to see any and all "good-guys" (who weren't complete morons)
> armed in a situation like the VA Tech one....even if they weren't a
> bunch of "Dirty Harry"s.

I had a class with 550 people in it. You think it would be a good
thing if one guy started shooting and 550 people opened fire in that
room? You're talking about over a thousand rounds per second in a
concrete room.

> > > You should learn to make up your fucking mind...
>
> > > "Frankly, I don't think many people who didn't grow up with guns would
> > > ever be qualified to safely handle one in a true emergency situation."
>
> > > Now, are you also asserting that liberals are the only group who,
> > > substantially, didn't grow up with guns? Or just academics?
>
> > Just academics, as I've said. The "liberals" thing was in answer to
> > derdag's garbled ramblings.
>
> So your assertion is simply that one must "grow up around guns" in
> order to learn to handle them properly and effectively in an emergency
> situtation?

No, but I wouldn't trust an academic that has been in academia all
their life to go down and get a concealed carry permit and
automatically be well prepared to handle the situation. They need
training, practice, and refreshers all the time. That's what the
police get.

> The academics you've known must all have been complete
> idiots. Of course, that would also explain your "A" in Statistics.

I guess all my teachers and profs were idiots then, right? So you'd
trust an 89 year old economist with no gun training to open fire on a
hostile in a closed room with little or no training? If I were you,
I'd look around and see if my brain fell out of my ear. In your case,
it probably fits.

> > I disagree. Several of my professors were over 75 (one was 89) and
> > had been in academia *their whole lives*. I can't see them as being
> > optimal targets for a concealed carry permit, and if they had one,
> > they'd be just as likely to do harm as good in an emergency. Now, the
> > other 10% of professors, that tend to build things, fix their own cars
> > and houses, and otherwise be hands-on types, maybe.
>
> Your understanding of what is required for firearm proficiency (Hint:
> It has nothing to do with the propensity for being a do-it-yourself
> Home Depot denizen) is even weaker than your understanding of what a
> political conservative is.

All you have to have to be proficient in firearms is desire, training
and practice. A concealed carry permit requires none of the above.
Without those three, I'd rather people be unarmed.

All you have to be a political conservative is a long flexible neck so
that you can stick your head up your butt or in the sand, which ever
is more convenient.

Lee Jay

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:13 pm
From: Free Lunch

On 23 Apr 2007 17:06:55 -0700, in talk.origins
Lee Jay <ljfinger@msn.com> wrote in
<1177373215.069422.150090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 23, 4:14 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 4:51 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>> > > And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
>> > > too well in Statistics 101, did you?
>>
>> > Got an A, actually.
>>
>> You must have been blowing the professor.
>
>Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't). Actually, I got As
>in almost everything from preschool to graduate school.
>
>> > > And, in any event, if you think
>> > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
>> > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>>
>> > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>>
>> Then you don't, because they aren't.
>
>They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.

That they appear to be, but in traditional American context, the
neo-fascism of this Administration would have been condemned by all of
the conservative voices before 1980. It was Reagan with his fake
conservatism that opened the door to the wars that this administration
has started on freedom.
...

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:18 pm
From: Lee Jay

On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 17:06:55 -0700, in talk.origins
> Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote in
> <1177373215.069422.150...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 23, 4:14 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 23, 4:51 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> > > And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
> >> > > too well in Statistics 101, did you?
>
> >> > Got an A, actually.
>
> >> You must have been blowing the professor.
>
> >Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't). Actually, I got As
> >in almost everything from preschool to graduate school.
>
> >> > > And, in any event, if you think
> >> > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> >> > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>
> >> > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>
> >> Then you don't, because they aren't.
>
> >They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.
>
> That they appear to be, but in traditional American context, the
> neo-fascism of this Administration would have been condemned by all of
> the conservative voices before 1980. It was Reagan with his fake
> conservatism that opened the door to the wars that this administration
> has started on freedom.
> ...

Yes...conservativism/liberalism is relative to the society at large.
Stupidity, however, transcends time.

Lee Jay

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:18 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"derdag" <derdag@chilledwatertech.com> wrote in message
news:1177289908.288618.123180@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

> I apologize for not doing more with my life...

<snip>

That suffices. No need to qualify it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:07 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 6:49 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:55 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > >> You are misrepresenting. Dr. Scott is correct because the evidence
> > > > >> says so. Dr. Scott has said at least ten thousand times: "go and check
> > > > >> me out and see if such and such is not true." I have and not even one
> > > > >> time have I ever found him to be wrong about anything. Not even one
> > > > >> time.
>
> > > > > Here's one, Ray: You said he claimed to have a degree that was
> > > > > specifically from the university itself, rather than from any particular
> > > > > department, and it was therefore the last handed out at graduation and
> > > > > marked with special honor.
>
> > > > > Did he really say that? Because the Stanford registrar's office says
> > > > > it's bullshit.
>
> > > > No response, Ray?
> > > > --
> > > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > > Richard Clayton
> > > > "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Where did Stanford say that?
>
> > > The real issue is why haven't you included your evidence to support
> > > your assertion?
>
> > > In other words, you are caught red-handed in a lie.
>
> > No, Ray. The one caught red-handed in a lie is Gene Scott. I emailed
> > the Stanford registrar's office and asked for verification of Scott's
> > claim that his degree was "cross-departmental in Philosophy and
> > Religion" and "was granted by the University itself and not by any
> > department" and therefore "the hardest degree to earn and the last
> > one(s) handed-out at graduation." (Note that these words were taken
> > almost verbatim from your own posts, Ray.)
>
> > Here's what the Stanford Registrar's Office had to say on the matter:
> > "I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described. We haven't
> > ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
> > earned! and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees. the claim
> > does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"
>
> First we remind everyone that Clayton is an Athiest-Darwinist and Dr.
> Scott is a Theist-Supernaturalist who has refuted Clayton's theory:
>
> And we remind everyone that Clayton has been identified as an
> unrepentant racist for advocating that it is acceptable to place
> Africans and transitional in the same sentence and context. Clayton is
> furious and out for blood - lashing out.
>
> "Stanford University" (according to Richard Clayton) writes:
>
> "I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described. We haven't
> ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
> earned! and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees. the claim
> does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"
>
> Why didn't Clayton tell us the persons name who wrote this
> "professional" looking reply? How many errors in grammar and
> punctuation is seen above? And *this* person speaks for Stanford
> University? Where in the "statement" does it say that Dr. Scott, in
> the 1950s, did not earn the degree in question, that is, cross
> departmental, but from the University itself, handed-out last at
> graduation? What does "honorary degrees" have to do with anything?
>
> Whoever claimed "honorary degree"?
>
> Dr. Scott's is cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion, and he
> has three Ph.D. minors (45 units each) in Geography, Psychology and
> Comparitive Religion. Dr. Scott was trained to be a professional
> educator; he spent his life doing just that. He was honored on the
> Stanford allumni magazine, and his doctoral dissertation (theology of
> Reinhold Niebuhr and its influence on Christian education) is
> available in the Stanford Library.
>
> An honorary degree is an insult usually handed-out to celebrities
> (uneducated persons). Someone has made a major blunder. But the
> "reply" said they do not hand out these kinds of degrees.
>
> It is obvious that Clayton *may* have contacted Stanford - we don't
> know for sure. And we do not know what Clayton said in his
> correspondence because we have not seen the original email with date
> attached. These observations are obvious since the "reply" above does
> not match the "contested claim" of Dr. Scott.
>
> Clayton wants us to believe that some unnamed person at Stanford (who
> cannot even write), claiming to speak for the University, but without
> mentioning Dr. Scott, knows the criteria and facts of Ph.D.
> requirements in the 1950s, and the Ph.D. programs offered, and this
> same hooded individual and their "reply" above contradicts Dr. Scott.
>
> What does all of this mean?
>
> Confirms that Clayton is a racist and is enraged to the point that he
> will offer flimsy "evidence" as seen above to get revenge on his
> worldview enemies. Produce a name at Stanford, Richard that will say
> they are talking about Dr. Scott and that in the 1950s the last
> diplomas handed-out at graduation were not from the University itself
> to the Ph.D.s who earned that highest degree and honor. Do it or you
> are caught in a red-faced lie.
>
> Ray

tell you what ray. why dont you email the registrar's office, and CC
me on the email. request that when they reply, they hit "reply to
all." that way, both of us will see the reply so that neither can lie
about it. if you would like, add a few more creationists to the CC
list. my email is xens AT comcast DOT net. (i assume you can figure
out how to parse that)

or if youd prefer, give me your email address and the email addresses
of anybody else you want to see the reply and i will CC you all.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Has a pope ever resigned?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/828f103da74ebe81?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:10 pm
From: jcon

On Apr 23, 4:59 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com> wrote in messagenews:462d26e9$0$8716$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> > "jcon" <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX
>
> > > The last Pope to abdicate was Pope Gregory XII,
> > > in 1409, and I *think* that since then, all have served
> > > until they died.
>
> > Some died in unusual circumstances - for a Catholic!
>
> > Pope Leo VII (936-9) died of a heart attack during sex.
> > Pope John VII(955-64) was beaten to death by the husband of the woman he
> > was having sex with.
> > Pope John XIII (965-72) was similarly murdered.
> > Pope Paul II (1467-71) allegedly died of a heart attack while being
> > sodomised by a page boy.
>
> > And these Bible bashers are always going on about morals and trying to tell
> > us when and how it's right to have sex !
>
> Interesting. However, I cannot find references to this in Wiki or any other source.
> And some of the dates are very wrong. I am curious as to what happened to
> John VIII thru XII - five popes who, by your dates, must have somehow fit into
> the years 964 to 965.
>

Some of these are listed in Wikipedia under "Myths and Legends
Surrounding the Papacy" with no details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myths_and_legends_surrounding_the_Papacy

I think it's safe to say that if a Pope *did* die during sex,
it's extremely unlikely that fact would ever get out.

-jc

> Care to provide a citation for your information?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:20 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Von R. Smith" <traklman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177335305.883963.5770@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 22, 11:12 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 11:27 pm, Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:> I was
just skimming down the threads, and saw the one titled "Re: the pope
> > > should resign", and had decided to just skip it, when I wondered --
has a
> > > pope ever resigned before? Or have they all served until they died?
> >
> > > I suppose it's the sort of thing I could find out with ten minutes of
web
> > > searching, but I don't want to waste that ten minutes: I want YOU guys
to
> > > do that.
> >
> > > So. Has it ever happened? And if so, what were the details?
> >
> > Several popes have abdicated, either in response to a scandal
> > (usually, the alleged sale of church offices)
>
>
> I thought the sale of church offices was par for the course. They
> called it the Rule of Par Simony. :p

Groan!! 8-}

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Human genes vs meat, cereal food.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cbf34822f0b9739a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:07 am
From: "Martin Hutton"

On 23-Apr-2007, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 6:43 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > On 18 Apr 2007 16:57:55 -0700, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 17, 11:30 am,Desertphile<desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > On 17 Apr 2007 10:47:14 -0700, WuzYoungOnceToo
> >
> > > > <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 17, 12:00 pm,Desertphile<desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On 17 Apr 2007 09:04:58 -0700, WuzYoungOnceToo
> >
> > > > > > > Oh, man. There's nothing like a big bowl of buffalo (N.A.
> > > > >bison,
> > > > > > > actually) stew. Delicious.
> >
> > > > > > I will just have to take your word for it. :-)
> > > > > You might choose to do so, but there's no reason you "have" to.
> > > > >Bison
> > > > > meat isn't that difficult to come by if you live in any sort of
> > > > > metropolitan area. And of course, there's always the internet.
> >
> > > > For the past 30 years I have been vegetarian (which may be why I'm
> > > > fat and very ugly. Hummm.... gotta think about that some day).
> >
> > > > Here on the Rez one may buy sheepburgers and goatburgers. Fuzzy
> > > > adorable sheep and goats, I bet.
> > > <Perks hopefully> Anymutton stew??? Barbequed baby goat??? With
> > > fry bread???
> >
> > > What time's dinner?
> >
> > Dinner is at 6:00 PM; heart bypass surgery will be prompylt at
> > 8:00 PM. :-) Nothing is better than piping hot fry bread with some
> > spicy guacamole, though the Navajos around here eat it with honey.
> >
> > Gods.... I'm actually drooling. Disgusting.
>
> My Fella over in NM is a Navajo. When we're together, we eat mutton
> stew with fry bread - or Navajo tacos made out of fry bread - for
> dinner, and then fry bread with honey for dessert. Yummmmmmmy!
>
> Fortunately for my waistline/unfortunately for my love life, we don't
> get to eat dinner together *that* often. (Long distance
> relationships, no matter how passionate and authentic, are difficult._
>
> Fry bread, on the other hand, is easy and delicious. :) :) :)

What's the bread fried in? Mutton fat?

When I was a lad my mum would make us breakfast with bread fried
in bacon fat. Hmm Hmm Hmmmmmm (And it was real smoke cured bacon
...not this chemical cured crap).

--
Martin Hutton

==============================================================================
TOPIC: how to reply to this fool?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/78a289522f236128?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:14 pm
From: Kevin Wayne Williams

Steven J. wrote:
> Horses (_Equus caballus_) have 64 chromosomes (or a haploid chromosome
> number of 32). Przewalsky's horse, a wild horse that can interbreed
> with domestic horses to produce fertile offspring, has 66
> chromosomes. Donkeys (which can interbreed with horses to produce
> offspring which, on rare occasions, are interfertile with horses) have
> 62 chromosomes; zebras (which can interbreed with horses to produce
> sterile offspring) have 44 chromosomes. Okapis (a short-necked
> giraffe species) have 44 to 46 chromosomes; okapis with different
> numbers of chromosomes are interfertile, and individuals with 45
> chromosomes exist. Chromosome number can vary within a species;
> chromosomes can fuse or split without necessarily impairing fertility,
> and in this manner different, related populations, subspecies, or
> species can aquire different chromosome numbers from one another and
> from their common ancestors.

Ah, but evilutionists forged the evolution of horses, so that doesn't count.
KWW

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what has science become?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/123a346e2233285d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:18 pm
From: "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"

The bad thing about science now is people such as Eugenie Scott.
People who don't believe in anything but science. Being human, that
equates to having science as a religion. That's a terrible thing,
because it makes everything in science very emotional because it's
their religion too. Really which of these science-fans could live it
down when natural selection theory is found to be structurally false,
as several philosophers have argued. So the fact is theories go by
unchallenged, it's just a game of politics, being clever like a lawyer
at defending the theory. That people don't have any religion outside
of science also results in an enormous dogmatizing going on in
science. In recent years the scientific method has been dogmatized to
death. But there exists no such thing as the scientific method which
all theory must adhere to. It is absolutely impossible to understand
quantum-mechanics with a dogmatic view of the scientific method. Real
science procedes by more complex things called "reasonability" and
"common sense" and stuff like that. Another thing that is happening is
that we now must accept things which are evidenced, eventhough the
evidence is very thin. For example the red-shift theory. They got a
very few observations that corresponded to redshift theory, and then
people were told that redshift was a fact. I find it very doubtful,
considering the evidence is so thin. Or take Hawkings multiverse
delusion. Really is it okay to engage in such a complete fantastical
delusion in science on that scale? Wasn't the main reason Hawking
advanced this theory because he got a kick out of it, rather then any
scientific reason? And then of course there are the Darwinists, who
endlessly make up stuff indistinghuishable from moral precepts. I
mean, if science is your religion, you're obviously going to fall back
on natural selection theory as the basis for your morality. Think what
would happen if Newton accepted evolutionary psychology developed by
Tooby, and Cosmides. What a nightmare. There's no way Newton could
have thought of anything special when he would be caught up in that
horriffying slush.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Monday, April 23, 2007

24 new messages in 11 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive